Case law

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas and Paul Hastings, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacity

154 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized sense … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

634 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

This involves two questions: “(1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a con- stitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Whether a Violated Right Was Clearly Established The second inquiry, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, is whether the constitutional standards at issue were clearly established at the time the alleged violation oc- curred.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Engle v. Townsley

49 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A reasonable official would have known that firing Engle in such circumstances would violate her clearly established first amendment rights.

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Thompson v. Spikes

663 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 22, 1987

to trial, and that entitlement to qualified immunity turns on "the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … been violated are all “clearly established.”

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Berrios-Cintron v. Cordero

976 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 27, 1997

Whether qualified immunity will protect an official from being held personally liable will depend on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Cohalan in further analysis of the qualified immunity issue.

Michael Kent v. County of Oakland

810 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2016

The district court found that the deputies’ use of the taser was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established law, and it denied the deputies’ motion for summary judgment on qualified and governmental immunity … Rather, “a defendant denied qualified immunity may appeal ... *390 [only] if the issue on appeal is whether the plaintiffs, facts, taken at their best, show that the defendant violated clearly established law.”

Kies v. City of Aurora

149 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 5, 2001

The Seventh Circuit has noted in the context of qualified immunity that if the plaintiffs’ initial pleadings themselves, taken as true, fail to adequately allege the violation of any clearly established right, dismissal for … The doctrine of qualified immunity shelters government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Rodriguez v. Panarello

119 F. Supp. 3d 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2015

clearly established. … Moreover, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time of the violation.

Michaels v. State of NJ

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

rights were not clearly established at the time of the investigation such that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have known that they were violating her rights. … The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity.

Aaron Salter v. City of Detroit, Mich.

133 F.4th 527 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights … Clearly Established Law on Withholding Material Evidence Even if he violated Salter’s rights under Brady, Detective Olsen contends that he is still entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time, it was not clearly